REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

bogus purchase of Rs.2,79,33,584/- which was already subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A) (appeal filed by assessee before Ld. CIT(A) on 28.04.2016). Therefore, the Ld. PCIT’s, show-cause notice dated 01.03.2018 proposing revisional jurisdiction of this subject matter was barred by clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section

REMY DIAMONDS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 5, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 3898 To 3900/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ The Principal Commissioner Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Of Income Tax-5 Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M. K. Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Road, Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051. आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. Nos. 5481 To 5483/Mum/2018 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 To 2010-11) Remy Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Circle-5(3)(1) Gw-1060, G- Block, Bharat Room No.573, Aayakar Vs. Diamond Bourse, Mumbai Bhavan, M. K. Road, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400020. Mumbai-400051. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadcr2195R (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Hiren Vepari Revenue By: Smt. Mahita Nair (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

bogus purchase of Rs.2,79,33,584/- which was already subject matter before the Ld. CIT(A) (appeal filed by assessee before Ld. CIT(A) on 28.04.2016). Therefore, the Ld. PCIT’s, show-cause notice dated 01.03.2018 proposing revisional jurisdiction of this subject matter was barred by clause (c) of Explanation 1 to Section

JITENDRA M KITAVAT,MUMBAI vs. ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI

In the result,appeals filed by the AO are rejected and the appeals of the assessee stand partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7049 & 7050/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ays: 2009-10 & 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan: Aabpk9960C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील संसंसंसं././././I.T.A./7099 & 7102/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Ay.S: 2009-10 & 2007-08 अपील अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

54F - Held, yes [Para 44] [In favour of revenue] II. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Advance by purchaser) - Assessment year 2001-02 - One VHPL allegedly advanced assessee cash against booking of flat - Assessee proved that amount so received was duly recorded in books of account of VHPL - Identity of VHPL was also established by filing

ITO 18(1)(5), MUMBAI vs. JITENDRA MADANLAL KITAWAT (HUF), MUMBAI

In the result,appeal filed by the AO is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra & Sandeep Gosainआयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7047/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Jitendra M. Kitavat (Huf) Ito 18(1)(5) Prop. Of M/S. Jivraj Exports Mumbai. 61, Purnima Apartment Vs. 43, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. Pan:Assesseebpk 9960 C (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं./I.T.A./7100/Mum/2016,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Ito 18(1)(5) Vs. Jitendra M. Kitavat(Huf) Mumbai. Mumbai-400 006 (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav-Cit-Dr Assessee By: Shri Vimal Punmiya

54F - Held, yes [Para 44] [In favour of revenue] II. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Advance by purchaser) - Assessment year 2001-02 - One VHPL allegedly advanced assessee cash against booking of flat - Assessee proved that amount so received was duly recorded in books of account of VHPL - Identity of VHPL was also established by filing

VINOD K SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

bogus transaction and the treatment of the investment thereof, in purchase of residential flat at Jaldarshan, Malabar Hills, Mumbai as unexplained investment; thereby denying the assessee exemption claimed thereon under section 54F

VINOD K.SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

bogus transaction and the treatment of the investment thereof, in purchase of residential flat at Jaldarshan, Malabar Hills, Mumbai as unexplained investment; thereby denying the assessee exemption claimed thereon under section 54F

ANJALI PANDIT,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 12, MUMBAI

Bench: Hon’Ble S/Shri Joginder Singh (Jm) & Rajesh Kumar,(Am) आमकय अऩीर सं./I.T.A. No.3028 To 3032/Mum/2011 (ननधधायण वषा / Assessment Year :2002-03 To 2006-07) Smt.Anjli Pandit, बनाम/ Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Gajanan Building No.8, 178, Tax, Central Circle 12, Vs. Cgo Building, M K Marg, Jawahar Nagar, Mumbai-400020. Goregaon (W), Mumbai-400062 (अऩीरधथी /Appellant) (प्रत्मथी / Respondent) ..

54F of the Act and hence not shown in the return of income. The AO noted that the assessee did not submit the computation of speculation income used for the purchase of shares, broker bill for purchase and sale of shares earning speculative income, no evidence qua purchase of shares of G Tech Soft Ltd and High Land

MEENA HASMUKH SAVLA,MATUNGA MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is\nallowed

54F. The Assessing Officer held that the purchase of shares of \"M'Ltd. was bogus and manipulated and therefore the subsequent sale was also bogus. The Assessing Officer further held that the assesse introduced his unaccounted income under the garb of long term capital gain and claimed same as exempt under section

VISHALV SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri C.N. Prasad Shri Vishal V. Shah Income Tax Officer-16(1)(1) 30 Warden Court Matru Mandir, Tardeo Road Vs. 79-81 August Kranti Marg Mumbai 400007 Mumbai 400036 Pan – Advps8129B Appellant Respondent

bogus income how it can be taxes as undisclosed income. 10. Notice under section 148 issued after 4 year so in reason recorded A.O. had come to conclusion that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts in the return. 11. A.O. has not proved nexus. A.O. has erred in disallowing transfer

KASHINATH NARAYAN PATIL,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3, MUMBAI, NEW PANVEL

Bench: Hon’Ble Sh. R. C. Sharma, Am & Hon’Ble Sh. Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 6767/Mum/2017 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09)

bogus transactions relating to sale and purchase of shares were done through this bank account and most of the beneficiaries had availed of relief under section 54F

ACIT 32(3), MUMBAI vs. RELIANCE CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

54F - Held, yes [Para 44] [In favour of revenue] II. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Advance by purchaser) - Assessment year 2001-02 - One VHPL allegedly advanced assessee cash against booking of flat - Assessee proved that amount so received was duly recorded in books of account of VHPL - Identity of VHPL was also established by filing

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

54F - Held, yes [Para 44] [In favour of revenue] II. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Advance by purchaser) - Assessment year 2001-02 - One VHPL allegedly advanced assessee cash against booking of flat - Assessee proved that amount so received was duly recorded in books of account of VHPL - Identity of VHPL was also established by filing

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

54F - Held, yes [Para 44] [In favour of revenue] II. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Advance by purchaser) - Assessment year 2001-02 - One VHPL allegedly advanced assessee cash against booking of flat - Assessee proved that amount so received was duly recorded in books of account of VHPL - Identity of VHPL was also established by filing

RELIANCE CORPORATION,MUMBAI vs. ITO WD 32(3)(2), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and that of revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D.T.Garasia, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am

54F - Held, yes [Para 44] [In favour of revenue] II. Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits (Advance by purchaser) - Assessment year 2001-02 - One VHPL allegedly advanced assessee cash against booking of flat - Assessee proved that amount so received was duly recorded in books of account of VHPL - Identity of VHPL was also established by filing

ITO 18(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. ASHOK BHIMRAO MOKASHI, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.7053/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Income Tax Officer-18(3)(1), Shri Ashok Bhimrao बनाम/ 207, Piramal Chambers, Mokashi, V. Lalbaug, 12, Harguru Niwas, Mumbai – 400 012. 45, Taikalwadi, Manorama Nagarkar Road, Mahim, Mumbai –400 016. "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Adhpm6235P .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 55(2)(a) of the Act as cost of acquisition of tenancy right is Nil , while the fact is that the details were submitted by the assessee while filing return of income. He relied upon decision of the Tribunal in the case of ITO v. Smt Chandrika B. Shah in ITA no. 1790/Mum/2009 vide orders dated

ACIT 21(1), MUMBAI vs. FARHAD JAMSHED BOTTLEWALA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri N.K. Pradhan, Hon'Bleasst. Cit– 21(1) V. Shri Farhad Jamshed Batliwala Room No. 116, 1St Floor, 7 Khan Estate, Batliwala Building, Piramal Chambers, Parel, M.M. Chottani Road, Mahim Mumbai – 400 012 Mumbai – 400 016

bogus and therefore disallowance of claim u/s. 54F itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars or concealment of income. 5. Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly relied on the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that, at the time of filing of return i.e. 25.03.2009 the decision of the Jurisdictional Mumbai Tribunal

ITO 26(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. VISHAL VINOD SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

section 69A, was the statement of Shri Chokshi only. No independent inquiry seems to have been done by the Assessing Officer to verify whether the statement of Mukesh Chokshi admitting to issuing bogus bills, was correct in the case of the assessee or not, especi~1ly when the assessee had vehemently denied the same during assessment proceedings and had submitted

DIPEN VINOD SHAH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 16(1)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kochar

bogus / fictitious profits, (short term and long term) on payment of cash for such gain on commission basis in relation to fictitious trade of shares of various companies from one of which, namely, Gold Star Finvest Pvt. Ltd., the assessee was engaged in share transaction the Assessing Officer re– opened the assessment under section 147 by issuing a notice under

AMBEREEN KABIR DHARAMSEY,MUMBAI vs. ITO 19(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Ramit Kochar, Am Ambereen Kabir Dharmsey, Flat Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.60, Colombia St. Domnicroad, Ward-19(3)(1), Parimal Bandra West, Mumbai 400 050 Chambers, Parel, Pan:Aabpd0647D Mumbai 400 012 .. Appellant Respondent Appellant By .. Shri Keshav B. Bhujle, Ar Respondent By .. Sri A. Ramachandran, Sr. Dr .. Date Of Hearing 17-10-2016 Date Of Pronouncement .. 02 -11- 2016 O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh, Jm:

54F of the Act in respect of investment in residential house. The AO after going through the statement of Shri Mukesh Chokshi, whose premises were searched by the 2 Income Tax Department and found that Shri Mukesh Chokshi was involved in providing accommodation entries through sale of shares through Goldstar Finvest P Ltd. Accordingly, the AO disallowed the claim